Old Mackie CR 1604 vlz .... ribbon cable problems?

[Ron C]

The desk I normally use for my Halloween stuff seems to have been
taken out by one of my cats. [Long uninteresting story]
Anyway, I pulled out my old Mackie CR 1604 vlz to fill in.
Seems that board suffers from that ribbon cable oxidation
problem that I seem to recall was common to them.

Two questions:
[1] Can I still get replacement ribbon cables for that board?
( ...and if so , where? )

[2] I'm thinking about getting a Mackie ProFX16v2 to fill in
for the dead desk and the sick CR 1604...

Has Mackie solved the ribbon cable problem in the new board?
~~
Note: I'm mostly retired from sound stuff, and just do simple
hobby level holiday stuff.

--
==
Later...
Ron Capik
--

[geoff]

If the problem is tarnishing of header plugs/sockets, a squirt of Caig
Deoxit and a few in-out insertions should fix it.

geoff

[Mike Rivers]

On 11/2/2018 11:16 PM, Ron C wrote:
> Seems that board suffers from that ribbon cable oxidation
> problem that I seem to recall was common to them.

Mackie did have a ribbon cable problem at one time and they were sending
out replacement cables, but I don't believe the problem was with the
smaller mixers, only on the larger SR series and the d8b digital
console. Still, connectors can get cruddy with age and non-use, but they
usually respond to a shot of contact cleaner and a little exercise
(disconnect and re-connect the connection a few times). Don't forget
that ribbon cables have connectors on both ends. One end is usually easy
to get to, the other end sometimes is buried.

> Can I still get replacement ribbon cables for that board?

Not from Mackie, but the connectors and cable are standard parts, so it
would be possible to have new ones made if you really wanted to rescue
the console. But ribbon cables aren't the only thing that can go wrong.

> Has Mackie solved the ribbon cable problem in the new board?

The Mackie of today is very different from the Mackie that built your
1604 VLZ. The new mixers are completely made in China, so if there's a
chronic problem (and I haven't heard of one, but then I don't keep close
tabs on them) it's surely not the same problem that they had 20 years ago.


--

For a good time, call http://mikeriversaudio.wordpress.com

[Phil Allison]

Mike Rivers wrote:

>
>
> Mackie did have a ribbon cable problem at one time and they were sending
> out replacement cables, but I don't believe the problem was with the
> smaller mixers, only on the larger SR series and the d8b digital
> console.

** I saw a few CR1604s that were affected by the bad ribbon cable issue.

A new set of cables was the only reliable cure - one could use spray cleaner and reseat the plugs ( using bench vise) but that never proved permanent.



.... Phil

[Scott Dorsey]

The problem is that the headers were made by one manufacturer and the cable
sockets were made by another and the profiles on the two weren't quite the
same, so the contact surface area was minimal.

But after all this time I don't remember who made each. If it were me, I
would just buy AMP sockets and crimp them on the existing cable.
--scott

--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

[Ron C]

Thanks Scott, that sounds like something worth trying.
I got a lot of years out of the unit, so believe I've gotten my
money's worth .. but not ready to toss it in the trash yet.

Looks like I'll probably get the ProFX16v2 to fill in.
~~
Enough for now.
~~
Thanks to all the folks in the thread for your input.

[Ron C]

I picked up a ProFX8v2 .. wow, this thing is a toy at best. When you said:
"the Mackie of today is very different from the Mackie that built your
1604 VLZ" I had no idea they had slipped this much.
Seems all of their "Pro" series is junk but they have a " ...VLZ4" series
that may not be junk.
I may skip Mackie and go with a Soundcraft LX7ii 16 as a replacement
for my old CR 1604.

[Mike Rivers]

On 11/10/2018 10:00 PM, Ron C wrote:
> I picked up a ProFX8v2 .. wow, this thing is a toy at best. When you said:
> "the Mackie of today is very different from the Mackie that built your
> 1604 VLZ" I had no idea they had slipped this much.

The ProFX series is the new version of the CFX series, which dates back
to the time when I was working for Mackie. It was the low priced "do
everything" mixer for the small band that just needed a mixer. It was
functional but not up to the audio or technical quality of the VLZ Pro
series of the time. But there were always customers for an inexpensive
mixer with built-in effects, so they continued that design.

A VLZ4 is probably still OK. There's no good reason for them to monkey
much with a decent design. Half a dozen or so years ago, Mackie started
using some custom designed ICs rather than standard parts, and came
along after that, so the VLZ4 might use them. It's probably not a bad
thing other than that you don't really know what's under the hood.

I don't know anything about the current Soundcraft line, but as far as I
know, they've maintained a decent reputation, and the LX7 looks like a
decent design.

[geoff]

On 11/11/2018 4:00 PM, Ron C wrote:

>>
>>
> I picked up a ProFX8v2 .. wow, this thing is a toy at best. When you said:
> "the Mackie of today is very different from the Mackie that built your
> 1604 VLZ" I had no idea they had slipped this much.
> Seems all of their "Pro" series is junk but they have a " ...VLZ4" series
> that may not be junk.
> I may skip Mackie and go with a Soundcraft LX7ii 16 as a replacement
> for my old CR 1604.

I have an Allen & Heath ZED something-or-other that is very well built.

geoff

[Dr2]

Still getting the hang of this new-fangled newsgroup reader thingy. I
think I may have private emailed one or two of you while making some
mistakes...sorry. Let's see if this one gets posted in the right place..

I haven't even looked at Rec.Audio.Pro in over a decade..but trying to
get back in the habit....even though it's not what it used to be. I
used to be involved way back when we did our first RAP CD compilation.

If I had a small gig like what you're discussing (being just a hobbyist
these days)... I don't think I'd take that kind of gear anymore. Too
much weight, and oh-so-many things to go wrong. Cables/connectors
getting corroded just sitting around, etc.

I'd grab a USB audio interface with 8 mic-inputs (like a Presonus
AudioBox or a Focusrite Scarlet) and a laptop and go do the gig with the
included software mixer. These days, the first generation interfaces
like those are nearly give-aways. Either you already have one sitting
in a closet or know someone who does.

Granted, you still have to haul amps and speakers, but basic software
plugins would handle the mixing console, compressors on every channel,
EQs, effects, monitor mixes, etc...

I know a few guys in town that do the small gigs this way, and they love
it. Plus, so many of them have the ability to mix on their ipads or
phones, it's all changed.

[Mike Rivers]

On 11/11/2018 3:33 AM, Dr2 wrote:
> I'd grab a USB audio interface with 8 mic-inputs (like a Presonus
> AudioBox or a Focusrite Scarlet) and a laptop and go do the gig with the
> included software mixer.     These days, the first generation interfaces
> like those are nearly give-aways.

Whether this will work for you depends a lot on the kind of gigs you do,
and also what your generation is. Ron has been around for a long time,
and while I know he keeps up with digital things, I know that his work
at least used to be primarily with acoustic acts. That's what I do and I
find it next to impossible to work with one of today's digital consoles,
and would never consider mixing a live show with a mouse.

A modern digital console works really well for bands that are reasonably
well rehearsed, can keep fairly constant levels on stage, and are
playing the kind of music that doesn't change too much during a song.
You can have a preset for every song in your set list to accommodate
different singers, instrument changes, and effects, but with the acts
that I work with, if I'm not constantly making small changes, things
fall apart pretty quickly. Someone who grew up playing computer games
might have the ability to handle that pretty well, but that's not me.

Somehow, I think that Ron is a hands-on kind of guy.

[Ron C]

Mike, I think you've nailed my profile/MO. I have no problem
mixing stuff down on a computer, but for me, live sound
tends to need knobs and faders. :-) [YMMV]

Thanks for all the input.

[Dr2]

You're quite right. I was thinking more about the set-it-and-leave-it
type act which just needs a couple tweaks in soundcheck, and then can be
left alone for the most part.
I thought about bringing along a control surface for the more hands-on
type act, but then I've gotten back up to the point where I might just
as well bring a small analog mixer.

[geoff]

On 12/11/2018 3:25 AM, Ron C wrote:

>>
> Mike, I think you've nailed my profile/MO. I have no problem
> mixing stuff down on a computer, but for me, live sound
> tends to need knobs and faders. :-)  [YMMV]
>
> Thanks for all the input.
>

I've got a digital mixer that has knobs and faders, and switches ....

geoff

[Mike Rivers]

On 11/11/2018 4:29 PM, geoff wrote:
> I've got a digital mixer that has knobs and faders, and switches  ....

But not enough of either! With the exception of the faders (which on
most digital mixers can have multiple functions) you have to push some
buttons before the knob that you have available does what you want. One
moment it can be a pan, another moment it can be the frequency of an
equalizer peak, and then the next moment it's the boost or cut at that
frequency. and a minute later it can be the level of a channel in one
player's monitor mix.

Digital mixers can do everything that analog mixers can, and then some,
but other than adjusting levels in a single mix, they're slower to
operate and require more concentration on operating, and distract from
listening to what you or the players are doing. The reason why "the
really big shows" love them is because they can preset and recall
everything and all they have to do is little tweaks. We little guys who
do festivals with a completely different band every half hour can't take
advantage of those tools and have to work by the seat of our pants
without one hand tied behind our back.

[Ron C]

Another thing with digital mixers, if you don't use it frequently you'll
[well, at least I ] would need to spend a bunch of time refreshing one's
self with all the layers and sequences and such when you pull it out.
One can figure out most analog boards by just looking at them.
Familiarity results in quicker optimization and fewer errors.
~~
I spent a lot of time in an all acoustic [um, in theory] venue that did a
new band every half hour, no set lists, and frequently didn't even know
how many band members .. very much seat of the pants.

...as usual YMMV

[Rob Levin]

Resurrecting this old thread.

I also have an old Mackie 1604-VLZ with intermittent channel issues. Was thinking of replacing all of the ribbon cables but I'm unsure how to source replacements.

Does anyone have any further direction on that?

Thanks!

[Scott Dorsey]

Rob Levin <rsl...@gmail.com> wrote:
>Resurrecting this old thread.
>
>I also have an old Mackie 1604-VLZ with intermittent channel issues. Was thinking of replacing all of the ribbon cables but I'm unsure how to source replacements.
>
>Does anyone have any further direction on that?

I bet Mackie still has them in stock if you ask, but they won't be free.

However I also bet if you clean the old ones with DeOxit and put a little
dab of dielectric grease on them, they will be fine in spite of the lower
contact area.

[palli...@gmail.com]

Scott Dorsey wrote:
================

>
> >I also have an old Mackie 1604-VLZ with intermittent channel issues.
> > Was thinking of replacing all of the ribbon cables but I'm unsure how to source replacements.
> >
> >Does anyone have any further direction on that?
>
>
> I bet Mackie still has them in stock if you ask, but they won't be free.
>

** Would be very old stock and have the same issue.

> However I also bet if you clean the old ones with DeOxit and put a little
> dab of dielectric grease on them, they will be fine in spite of the lower
> contact area.

** The bad contacts were with the IDC and cable - not the pins.

Shameful of Mackie to have the ( very rare) problem happen and NEVER solve it.

Parallels with Marshall recently selling tens of thousands of 100W and 50W tube amps with defective PCBs.
Never any recalls or compensation to buyers for having to buy new ones, most also defective.

...... Phil

[Scott Dorsey]

palli...@gmail.com <palli...@gmail.com> wrote:
>Scott Dorsey wrote:
>================

>
> ** Would be very old stock and have the same issue.
>
>> However I also bet if you clean the old ones with DeOxit and put a little
>> dab of dielectric grease on them, they will be fine in spite of the lower
>> contact area.
>
> ** The bad contacts were with the IDC and cable - not the pins.
>
> Shameful of Mackie to have the ( very rare) problem happen and NEVER solve it.

They definitely did fix it, because the replacement cables that they
provided were from a different manufacturer and did not fail. This
was discussed here extensively back when it happened in the nineties.

At the time, they said the problem was because the male header and female
connector were from different vendors and did not have the same shape
contacts. I don't know if this is true or not, but I do know that reseating
and greasing the contacts seemed to fix things if not permanently at least
for a good long time.

[palli...@gmail.com]

Scott Dorsey wrote:
=================

>
> > ** Would be very old stock and have the same issue.
> >
> >> However I also bet if you clean the old ones with DeOxit and put a little
> >> dab of dielectric grease on them, they will be fine in spite of the lower
> >> contact area.
> >
> > ** The bad contacts were with the IDC and cable - not the pins.
> >
> > Shameful of Mackie to have the ( very rare) problem happen and NEVER solve it.
>
> They definitely did fix it, because the replacement cables that they
> provided were from a different manufacturer and did not fail.

** I saw several Mackies with replacement cables ( sold as a set) with the SAME issue after a year or two.

>
> At the time, they said the problem was because the male header and female
> connector were from different vendors and did not have the same shape
> contacts.

** Horse manure.

The problem was incompatible ribbon cable and IDC pins.
One had only to touch the ribbon itself to hear signals drop in and out.
Re-tightening the headers in a vice often helped, for a time.

Never seen the same issue with ANY other cables.
Same goes for Marshall, severely leaking PCB material is unheard of in guitar amps.


..... Phil

[Robert Levin]

Thanks for your replies. I'm just surprised to not find anything online regarding these. You'd think there would be more detailed information on how to fix it somewhere but I haven't found anything except forum postings talking about the replacement cable set (which of course is not available anymore).

I'll reach out to Mackie and maybe someone there can point me in the right direction.

[geoff]

I always understood that the Mackie thing was a metallurgical issue.

geoff

[palli...@gmail.com]

geoff wrote:
=========

>
> I always understood that the Mackie thing was a metallurgical issue.
>

** No fooling?

See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Insulation-displacement_connector

IMO IDC = Inherently Dodgy Connection.


..... Phil

[geoff]

Funny how so many have been operating entirely reliably, much of the
world's infrastructure depending on them, for many decades.

geoff

[Ralph Barone]

Tell that to the phone and internet companies. They seem to have done okay
with punch down blocks and IDC RJ45s.

[palli...@gmail.com]

geoff wrote:
==========

> On 4/09/2022 12:55 pm, palli...@gmail.com wrote:
> > geoff wrote:
> > =========
> >>
> >> I always understood that the Mackie thing was a metallurgical issue.
> >>
> >
> > ** No fooling?
> >
> > See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Insulation-displacement_connector
> >
> > IMO IDC = Inherently Dodgy Connection.
> >
> >

> Funny how so many have been operating entirely reliably,

** Not in live sound geara it hasn't.

All the moving about soon finds the dodgy ones,

> of the
> world's infrastructure depending on them, for many decades.

** Horse poo.

[palli...@gmail.com]

Ralph Boring One wrote:
=====================

> > ** No fooling?
> >
> > See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Insulation-displacement_connector
> >
> > IMO IDC = Inherently Dodgy Connection.
> >
> >

> >

> Tell that to the phone and internet companies.

** Yawwnnn...

Smartarse bullshit = no case to answer.

[Ralph Barone]

Please remember after you have finished insulting the person, to remember
to actually respond to what they had to say :-)

[palli...@gmail.com]

** FFS moron - YOU had *nothing* to say.

Just a dumb as dogshit, mindless insult.

[geoff]

Time for your meds again Phil. Lithium is it, or something more advanced ?

geoff

[Ralph Barone]

Since you seemed perfectly capable of spewing invective, but not so capable
of understanding my (admittedly tersely worded) post, let me try it again
using more words.

Insulation displacement connectors have been used by phone and internet
companies for decades. The 66 and 110 IDC terminal blocks
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/66_block
have been in use for 60 years, which seems a long time to be using an
“inherently dodgy connector”. Ethernet connections are made using a
combination of punchdown (IDC) and crimp (close enough) connections, so the
fact that you are able to reply to this post is evidence that IDC
connectors are reliable.

What went wrong for Mackie? I don’t know. Maybe it was a mechanical issue
(wire was marginally too small for the connector, so insufficient spring
pressure) or metallurgical (incompatible metals), or the cables were badly
assembled. That does not prove your assertion that all IDC connectors are
inherently dodgy.

Now that I have used more words, please feel free to respond to the
content. Mindless insults will be, of course ignored.

PS: Apologies for using the phrase IDC connector. It’s wrong, but to leave
out the superfluous “connector” sounds wrong.

[palli...@gmail.com]

Ralph Barone Bullshitting IDIOT :
===========================

>
> >>>>> ** No fooling?
> >>>>>
> >>>>> See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Insulation-displacement_connector
> >>>>>
> >>>>> IMO IDC = Inherently Dodgy Connection.
>>
> >>>>>
> >>>> Tell that to the phone and internet companies.
> >>>
> >>> ** Yawwnnn...
> >>>
> >>> Smartarse bullshit = no case to answer.
> >>>
> >> Please remember after you have finished insulting the person, to remember
> >> to actually respond to what they had to say :-)
> >>
> >
> > ** FFS moron - YOU had *nothing* to say.
> >
> > Just a dumb as dogshit, mindless insult.
> >
> Since you seemed perfectly capable of spewing invective,
>

** That is a MASSIVE lie.

What a VILE person you are, Ralph.
A toxic narcissist, pedant and ego manic.
Bet your parents were vile too.

FOAD.



..... Phil

[Ralph Barone]

Awfully nice of you to snip my post showing the reasons why I thought your
original post was wrong.

PS: It’s best not to stare into a mirror when you’re posting. You may
inadvertently post about yourself instead of the person you’re replying to.

[palli...@gmail.com]

Ralph Barone: Toxic Narcisist & Troll:
===============================

>
> >>> ** FFS moron - YOU had *nothing* to say.
> >>>
> >>> Just a dumb as dogshit, mindless insult.
> >>>
> >> Since you seemed perfectly capable of spewing invective,
> >>
> >
> > ** That is a MASSIVE lie.
> >
> > What a VILE person you are, Ralph.
> > A toxic narcissist, pedant and ego manic.
> > Bet your parents were vile too.
> >
> > FOAD.
> >
> >

> Awfully nice of you to snip my post showing the reasons why I thought your
> original post was wrong.
>

** Listen asshole.

You are soooo fucking autistic, pedantic and stupid you have ZERO idea what I wrote *actually meant*.
In fact, you have IGNORED what I wrote and substituted you own, wrong assumptions.

YOU are the vile child of even viler parents.




....... Phil

[Ralph Barone]

OK, then explain what you really meant. Actually participate in the
discussion and point out how I have misunderstood you. And see if you can
do it without the heaping dose of abuse that you have been sprinkling on
every one of your replies.

[palli...@gmail.com]

Ralph Barone: Toxic Narcisist & Troll:
===============================
>>
> >

> > ** Listen asshole.
> >
> > You are soooo fucking autistic, pedantic and stupid you have ZERO idea
> > what I wrote *actually meant*.
> > In fact, you have IGNORED what I wrote and substituted you own, wrong assumptions.
> >
> > YOU are the vile child of even viler parents.
> >
> >

> OK, then explain what you really meant.

** I wrote it all here - you did not fucking read it ALL,

> Actually participate in the
> discussion and point out how I have misunderstood you.

** No way - you dumbfuck asshole.

[Ralph Barone]

You’re not making this easy, are you?

You had written two things that weren’t insults:

1) “The problem was incompatible ribbon cable and IDC pins.

One had only to touch the ribbon itself to hear signals drop in and out.

Re-tightening the headers in a vice often helped, for a time. ”

2) “IMO IDC = Inherently Dodgy Connection”

So as far as I can tell, you said that Mackie mixed parts that shouldn’t
have been combined, and the resultant assembly wasn’t reliable (which I
agree is quite plausible) and then you said that IDCs are “inherently
dodgy”, which I disagreed with. Like any other component that is meant to
interface with another component, there are defined tolerances on the
interface, and if you violate this tolerances, things don’t work. This does
not mean that the concept is inherently bad, but simply that certain key
dimensions need to have attention paid to them. If I built an XLR connector
which was 10% larger, it would be a compatibility disaster, but that
doesn’t invalidate that the XLR is a generally good design. I had pointed
out that the successful use of IDC connectors in the telecom and internet
industries for 60 years implied that they were not “inherently dodgy”.

So what didn’t I read, and what didn’t I understand?